From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 19:39:59 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:  A correction, and another motive for Clipper
In-Reply-To: <199304272158.AA11690@well.sf.ca.us>
Message-ID: <9304280202.AA24998@relay1.UU.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: Arthur Abraham <a2@well.sf.ca.us>

Your point is that government employees in non-critical positions
might end up using Clipper, and this would either reduce corruption
or, alternatively, drive the government to repudiate the entire
scheme.  

The latter will not happen (at least not for this reason).  Labeling
of cliches notwithstanding, there is no reason why government
employees could not use a different standard if they found it
necessary.  This would be no more politically disagreeable than many
steps taken in the past.

The former I don't understand.  The direct effect of Clipper would
be to make eavesdropping by other than LE more difficult.  There
could be an impact on corruption only if it were known or believed
that the level of surveillance had concomitantly increased -- if all
calls were tapped and archived, perhaps.  This would be bad.  It
would undoubtedly increase the likelihood of such a policy's being
implemented w.r.t. the general population.

> -a2.]

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu